quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

There is no proof that steel was in a fire. There is no proof that was steel from WTC. There is nothing at all remarkable about that scrap whatsoever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
well little mention of them does not negate their existence as active members.

So they have all mentioned any qualifications EXCEPT the PHDs they have

quote:

No I am not spouting off about gage, I am spouting off about the evidence he lays on the table. Others can figure out if there was a conspiracy, this is about the scientific approach to the matter.

Same thing dopey

No its not the same thing, your version carries the a message that gage is speaking as a single person that you consider a kook, when the reality is that he is speaking for now over 2000 professionals that have joined efforts to get a real investigation. In short your characterization the matter is inappropriate.

quote:

Oh? In that case I stand down so you can instruct us what a phd is in your opinon?

Doctor of Philosophy, last time I looked.

Well thats one version of hundreds! LOL
PhD student position available in Mathematical Neuroscience- fundamental principles underlying early brain development.

quote:

Gage is only the spokes person to inform you what the group as a whole have concluded in the professional opinions. So I dont see how attacking him personally can possibly gain any points in a physics and engineering debate of the events of 911.

Bollocks..... You keep lining to his presentations, now you are trying to airbrush him out of the pictue.

Not at all, I am reminding you to attack the subject matter instead of slamming the messenger.

Sure floors may depending on the circumstance, especially with a little help, however all 3 building came down uniformly in a symmetrical fashion despite having asymmetrical structural damage.

quote:

that is so funny I laugh my ass off every time I see it, but surprisingly there are people who cant distinguish between what to expect from symmetrical damage versus asymmetrical damage.

Cartoon time again

No that was actually a 101 lesson in physics and or engineering to help those who may be subject to deception from those who might spin the matter.

quote:

I do not know of any case (and I have looked extensively) of asymmetrical damage causing uniform symmetrical failure at freefall in nature. Do you?

So what, that doesnt make your claim correct

But NIST agrees that the building freefell and put it in their final report. The key here is that the only way a building can freefall is when their is no supporting structure.

So what do you think can remove the supporting structure fast enough that a building would simply freefall? (That means it fell at the same speed as dropping a brick on your foot)

There are many professionals, architects, engineers and other degree holders who have knowledge of physics all of whom are in the 'group', gage is the spokesman.

The only reason you dont have literally all engineers worldwide protesting is because they have not see the evidence. Once they see the evidence the government version loses support.

This is a worldwide issue, look what these experts have to say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

quote:

This was a battle that the so called 911 myth busters or debunkers better know as official story huggers fought ferociously to no avail for years.

Its very simple really to explain the difference and what should have been expected under those conditions.

No it isnt simple, whats your view on an explosion caused by molten aluminium and water, can you even explain what that is ?

Well I suppose simple depends on a persons knowledge base.

You can heat a pot of grease to 400 degrees and pour it in a pot of water on your stove and you better duck quick and have a cleaning crew ready.

If you pour anything that is very hot into water (>boiling temperature) it will cause immediate steam upon contact, and if its red hot ~600-800 Degrees F, or worse yellow-white hot, ~2800 degrees F, with adequate mass it will boil the water so fast upon contact it will for all intents and purposes explode.

However if you reverse the process and spray water on molten aluminum you just get a lot of steam.

Molten aluminum will instantly cool without bursting into flames, however one problem they had when trying to put out the fires is that the molten stuff burst into flames when sprayed with water.





[quoteThis is what he is talking about, when he says the steel was literally evaporated. Something had to have been used to separate the grain boundaries to get it look like that.

quote:

I dont know of any situation where fire can make steel look like that do you?

quote:

He cant be all bad since they invited him to present the issues on CSpan Journal.

quote:

I am sure Jowekos untimely death immediately following his interview where he stated that it was a demolition was just another one of those unfortunate "coincidences" right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

That is scrap steel, from somewhere unknown, in unremarkable condition, and yeah, there is a whole industry that buys and uses that.

quote:



Molten aluminum will instantly cool without bursting into flames, however one problem they had when trying to put out the fires is that the molten stuff burst into flames when sprayed with water.

quote:

Molten Aluminum
Failure to use proper procedures in melting and casting aluminum can be dangerous. Molten Aluminum is typically handled at 1300-1450 degrees Fahrenheit to avoid premature solidification. Contact with molten aluminum can cause severe burns and create a serious fire hazard. Mixing water or other contaminants with molten aluminum can cause explosions. Explosions can also occur in the aluminum scrap re-melting process due to moisture and contamination in scrap. - See more at: http://www.aluminum.org/resources/electrical-faqs-and-handbooks/safety#sthash.JCrWyfZW.dpuf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

everything I posted was in reference to the actual events on 911 which is what I understood your question to be referencing as well, so I did not see the need to create a long list that included every possible condition that could possibly cause an explosion and since an aluminum recycling operation has nothing what so ever to do with 911 or any event that took place there it didnt occur to me that you would hunt down a nonsequitor exception.

Your post showed me nothing I did not already know and was an unresponsive answer with no value with regard to the point, no dots to connect.

The material in the clip shown to you burst into white hot flames flying off and falling to the ground when water from the firemans hose strikes it.

Molten aluminum and steel do not respond that way. text from some article about recycling hazards shows nothing what so ever.

Thermetic reactions cannot be put out with water once started.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

The point is, you are talking bollocks. molten aluminium and water can cause explosions, very large ones. Your clip of some bloke working in his yard is hardly the same as conditions those that occured during 9/11 would have been.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

"The nuts which should be on the inside and instead are on the outside. (translation the column was severed) "

Oh goodie, a shot of random nuts on a random piece of steel and you have solved the riddle.

Please excuse me while I piss myself laughing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef
It's clear where the nuts are. They're starting threads here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

"The nuts which should be on the inside and instead are on the outside. (translation the column was severed) "

Oh goodie, a shot of random nuts on a random piece of steel and you have solved the riddle.

Please excuse me while I piss myself laughing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

Ruprecht, put the cork back on the fork.